1.Ethnic disparities and inequality in the UK: call for evidence
DEADLINE 30 NOV 2020 !!!
On 26 October 2020, the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities issued a call for evidence regarding disparities and inequality in the UK, focusing on four areas: education, employment and enterprise, health and crime and policing.[(by Practical Law Employment)]
2. FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS in their ET claim -was your public disclosure dealt with by ET or relevant body?(Mine wasn't! Twice!)
"If you would like to provide details of your case highlighting the areas that you feel are of significance to the call to evidence and comment on the proposals for an Office of the Whistleblower we would be delighted to hear from you. "
"The APPG is reviewing the evidence to advance our proposals for an office of the whistleblower which will address the issues that you raise. We have received over 1000 submissions and released a report last year available on our website www.appgwhistleblowing.co.uk setting out our 10 point plan. "
Contact:Georgina Halford-Hall
Director of Strategy and Policy
APPG for Whistleblowing
e: halfordhallg@parliament.uk
m: 07860963947
All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are informal cross-party groups that have no official status within Parliament. They are run by and for Members of the Commons and Lords. The purpose of the APPG for whistleblowing is to examine the evidence and case for improvements to whistleblowing legislation.
3. New Tribunal Procedure Rules
Non-employment judges will be able to be deployed into employment tribunals, if certain criteria on suitability are met.
Legal officers would be allowed to carry out some of the tasks currently performed by employment judges. Those tasks are set out in the SI and include:
-considering acceptance or rejection of claim forms
-extending time for an ET3 or for compliance with case management orders
-giving permission to amend claims and responses when both parties consent
-ordering further information
-dismissing claims by consent upon withdrawal
Legal officers will not decide substantive matters and, despite the title, do not need to be legally qualified.
The Acas Early Conciliation provisions are changing to allow a standard six week early conciliation process in all cases, rather than a default one month with a possible extension of a further two weeks.
The Acas Early Conciliation process, and tribunal rules, are being amended to allow greater flexibility in handling minor errors.
The rules are changing to allow multiple Claimants and Respondents to use the same forms where reasonable, to avoid multiple certificates and time limits in what is essentially the same dispute.
The measures for the employment tribunal rules, use of legal officers and cross-deployment of judges will come into force on 8 October. The measures on early conciliation will come into force 1 December.
[Source Daniel Barnett newsletter]
4. Employment Tribunal erred.
My case 2405428/2016 (UKEATPA/0941/19/LA) the EAT ruled on 19 Aug 2020 in a Rule3(10) hearing that ET Judge Sherratt erred on 6 grounds! which will be decided in a full hearing.
Full Order can be found here:
https://24054282016and24022112019.com/
Little did I know(not mentioned in a hearing at all) thanks to my success, EAT Judge allowed Respondents Answers on a form sent out already in the beginning of the process EATFORM3 that has a point on cross-appeal.
Respondent's cross-appeal was already dealt with and refused once in Feb'20 without further action taken by the Respondent (no Rule3(10) hearing requested). I waited 5 months for that decision back then!
ET scheduled Remedy hearing 1.5 years from the Judgment and on 21 Jan 2021, which the Respondent attempts to postpone!
Despite that Respondent's DUPLICATE cross-appeal was send to the Judge again for sift!!!
This is on a one claim I won 1.5 years ago and now have scheduled Remedy hearing for.
How unfair is that? 45000 outstanding ET claims and a Higher Tribunal Judge sift twice the same cross-appeal. Not to mention I am going through this hell again waiting God knows how long and probably will be loosing Remedy hearing because of that.#Retaliation #RightNotToBePunished
This claim was now finalised at the EAT (Respondent was being given 3 opportunities to cross-appeal). Hopefully Remedy hearing on 21 Jan2021.
That's all I gathered. Please share and provide evidence where you can!I did my best @kpa20201
It is a (4 year) nightmare. I appealed to the Court of Appeals regarding remaining claims.
5. Is the Equality Act 2010 compatible with the Convention Rights having regard to EU Citizens protection from discrimination post Brexit Referendum? EU Citizens (Union Citizens) having been recognized as a separate group needing additional protection from discrimination in the UKs Withdrawal Agreement from the EU(2019/C 384 I/01): “RECOGNISING that it is necessary to provide reciprocal protection for Union citizens and for United Kingdom nationals, as well as their respective family members, where they have exercised free movement rights before a date set in this Agreement, and to ensure that their rights under this Agreement are enforceable and based on the principle of non- discrimination;"
“Art.12 Non-discrimination. Within the scope of this Part, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality within the meaning of the first subparagraph of Article 18 TFEU shall be prohibited in the host State and the State of work in respect of the persons referred to in Article 10 of this Agreement.”
The Equality Act 2010 having not been updated to reflect the extent of increased racism and xenophobia towards EU Citizens (or Union Citizens) post Brexit Referendum rendered it inappropriate statue of law to deal with EU Citizens increased discrimination and victimisation post Brexit Referendum in the very specific hostile climate, hence suffered increased discrimination and victimisation without recourse to justice?
(1) Press reports:
“Baroness Warsi says people have been given 'a licence to be racist' since Brexit referendum.” [Yorkshire Post,22Jan2020]
(2) “Horrible spike in hate crime linked to Brexit vote, Met Police says”:
“Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner expressed alarm about the figures, “We saw this horrible spike after Brexit”, he said. He revealed there was a connection between the referendum and many of the incidents and pointed out that many of the victims were Eastern Europeans.” [The Guardian, 28Sep2016]
There were 3599 race discrimination cases - Total number of receipts by jurisdiction, 1 April 2018 - 31st March2019. Further 3967 race discrimination cases from 01 Apr’19 to 31 Mar’20. But 1858 race discrimination cases year 2014/15, and 2002 race discrimination cases year 2015/16. Increase twofold.[MOJ, Quarterly Statistics Employment Tribunal]
Success rate for race discrimination cases (successful at hearing) was 3% in 2007-2014; 4% in year 2014/2016, 3% 2016/2019 and 2% in 2019/2020.
Similarly for sex discrimination cases 3% in 2007/2009, 2% in 2009/2014, 1% in 2014/2018, 2% in 2018/19 and 3% in 2019/20. [MOJ, Quarterly Statistics Employment Tribunal]
The case (2405428/2016) predicted to take some 30 weeks (the ‘HMCT Guidance of Employment Tribunal T421’ proceedings taking 30 weeks) is in its 4th year –launched on 03 Dec 2016.
There are currently near 46000 cases outstanding in the Employment Tribunal.
6. Brexitland, a book written by Professors M.Sobolewska and R.Ford, 2020 of Cambridge University Press, argues that Brexit is the result of conflict that have been building for decades. It reads in Chapter 4:
A. “But while any influx of outsiders can trigger ethnocentric reactions, the deepest divides and most lasting conflicts have come over international immigration and the rising ethnic and racial diversity that successive waves of it have generated. We examine the first wave of sustained non-white migration to Britain from the 1950s to the 1970s, showing how conflicts over this migration became mobilised into politics. The choices taken during this wave of migration set up an identity politics alignment in the electorate, and this alignment in turn has shaped more recent identity politics conflicts over immigration.”
B. “There are three parts to the story, which parallel and foreshadow events in the decade leading up to the EU Referendum of 2016.(…) more liberal and cosmopolitan political elites to introduce reforms granting extensive migration rights to a large population in order to improve Britain’s international position, while underestimating the scale and intensity of public hostility this would trigger. “
C. “(…) activating ethnocentric hostilities in the native electorate who perceived the new migrants as a threatening out-group.”
D. “In the 2010s, this was the story of UKIP’s rise, as identity conservatives frustrated with successive governments’ inability to control migration turned to the radical right and eventually forced the Conservatives to offer an option to exit Britain’s open border arrangements with the EU via a referendum on Brexit. The story played out in a similar way in the 1960s(…)”
E. “In the first wave, committed identity liberals within the Labour Party were pivotal in pushing through the first race relations legislation[1976 Race Relations Act) – writing anti-racism norms into British law(…
F. Eight hundred million people across the globe acquired full British citizenship rights, including the right to settle and work in Britain, and to participate in British mainland politics from the moment they arrived.”(from 1948)
G. “While close links with the former Empire were seen as essential to Britain’s future prosperity and influence, mass immigration was not expected to be part of that equation, nor were all parts of the former Empire seen as equally important. The emphasis of the political elite was on maintaining close relations with the white colonial settler societies of the ‘Old Commonwealth’ – Canada, Australia and New Zealand.”
H. “It was not possible to preserve this right for the white settler states of the ‘Old Commonwealth’ while excluding the black and Asian majority Commonwealth states without writing an explicit ‘color ban’ into the legislation(…)”
I. “The policymakers who thus opened up the opportunity to migrate to Britain to hundreds of millions of people in Caribbean, Asian and African territories(…)”
J. “Public opposition to migration in the first wave
K. As Commonwealth migration flows increased, ethnocentric sentiments in the electorate were activated and strong public opposition began to manifest itself.(…)the evidence available underscores that public opposition to ‘coloured’ migration, as it was then called, was intense and widespread from the outset. Close to 90 per cent of poll respondents supported strong restrictions on Commonwealth or ‘coloured’ migration, and around 70 per cent expressed approval of the first restrictive legislation passed by the Conservatives in 1962.”
L. “(…)the overwhelming focus of public attention and hostility was migration from the West Indies and the Indian subcontinent – indeed ‘coloured’ migration was the issue pollsters typically asked about, rather than Commonwealth migration in general.”
M. “(…)voters were consistently much more likely to express ethnocentric hostility to ‘coloured’ migrants, and to support policies which would halt migration to Britain or repatriate already settled migrants.”
N. “’Us’ for the British public of the 1950s and 1960s was white British people born and resident in Britain.”
O. “It took them fourteen years to begin restricting these rights, and thirty-five years to completely curtail them.”
P. “In this way, too, arguments during the first wave of migration resembled, and influenced, those during the second wave.”
Q. “(…)the EU A8 enlargement of 2004. The decision to align Britain with a large international structure – this time the EU- once again led the government of the day to forgo immigration restrictions and triggered an unforeseen influx of migrants that was opposed by ethnocentric voters.”
R. “This partisan alignment over race and ethnocentrism was still in place when immigration once again began to disrupt politics in the 2010s and, as we shall see, it played an important role in shaping the political impact of these new disruptions.” Summarizes the author of Brexitland chapter4.
S. The academics equate the ‘first wave’ of the Commonwealth migration influx in 1950-60 to the ‘second wave’ of EU Citizens influx. The first influx ended in 14 years (1948-1962) the second in 12 years (2004-2016 Brexit Referendum). The migration statistics are also similar where the ‘first wave’ brought around 2.4mln migrants, EU free movement around 3mln. 88% of British people were opposed to immigration in 1964, 74% were opposed to Eastern Europeans immigration in 2000.
The ‘first wave’ forced first anti-discrimination laws (Race Relations Act 1965). Brexit referendum erroneously did not trigger enhanced protection for targeted ‘second wave’ EU Citizens group or increased anti-discrimination law update in the Equality Act 2010.
7. There is no relevant law in the Equality Act 2010 to deal with increased racism towards certain group (EU Citizens) leading to and post Referendum largely caused by EU free movement clause. There was no protection sufficient enough to prevent increase of racism and xenophobia towards this group. Are Employment Tribunals following public opinion then?Case law reads:
a) In Mr J Day v Alloga UK Limited, 2601591/2016, European Union workers in this country were fearful for their continued employment in the United Kingdom should the outcome be Brexit.
b) In Mrs M Green v South Cave Kids Club, 1800950/2017, The staff and management round this time, would make racist comments like ‘send the eastern European workers home’ or ‘these eastern European workers are taking our jobs’ knowing full well that Marie Green came from the Czech Republic.(…)”
c) In Mr A Puri v Interalinks Ltd, 2200418/2017, the Brexit effect had led to diminished client activity, and hence adversely affected his performance. a recognition of what might be called the Brexit effect.”
d) InK_Stefanko_and_Others_v_1__Maritime_Hotel_Ltd__in_voluntary_liquidation__2__Mr_N_Doherty_UKEAT_0024_18_OO, the EAT reversed ET decision that there was no race discrimination. “call Ms Woronowicz a “self-centred Polish bitch” he was very angry and told her that if she thought things were so bad, she should go back to Poland and that he repeatedly swore and told the three of them to pack their bags and leave as they repeatedly requested the correct payment for their wages.”
e) In Carlos Rafael Mujia-Zambrana v Citybus Limited: 390/19, Racial discrimination(Spanish) and harassment case:
“he had been subjected to racial comments and remarks by Inspector McCullough over a period of 18-24 months. Specifically, the claimant alleged as follows: - “In June 2017 while I was working Inspector McCullough made a comment about me needing a work permit soon like the rest of the foreigners, or soon it will be no foreigners in this country and you would have to leave. In asking me about political unrest of Spain saying that I will be a foreigner here and in Spain or why the colour of my skin wouldn’t change coming back from Holidays.”( June 2017)
McCullough allegedly said to him – “Why are you in the sun you don’t change colour”.
“27. Mrs Fisher then asked what racist comments he made and the claimant provided two comments.
Now foreigner what are you going to do – with Brexit, no passport?
What tan are you going to get, you’re almost black.”
“I raised my concerns with management and lodged a formal complaint of harassment.” Claimant
“After all interviews were finished I was told by the manager literally that after interviewing Mr McCullough that all the comments were made in a bit of a banter and were light-hearted.”
“6. The claimant has been employed by the respondent for approximately 17 years and continues to be so employed. At the time of the tribunal hearing the claimant was off work following an assault in the course of his duties.”
“79. Thus while the claimant may well have succeeded to some degree had he brought his claim within time he failed to do so and we do not consider that it would be just and equitable to extend time. The claim must therefore be dismissed.”
f) In Mr E Petrica v Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust:3327705/2017 and 335871/2017
The unanimous judgment of the Tribunal is that all the claims are dismissed.
“5.In these further and better particulars, the Claimant described himself as being “EastEuropean from Romania” and later claimed that he had: been treated less favourably because of my Eastern European national origins, treated as a bargain cheap, in the context of Brexit and this led to do admin for Enuresis without being paid.”
g) In Mr J Day v Alloga UK Ltd: 2601591/2016:
“29.This Judge is also very much aware, as it was widely publicised, and from my own knowledge as an Employment Judge, that many European Union workers in this country were fearful for their continued employment in the United Kingdom should the outcome be Brexit. Would they have to return to their country of origin?
30. In the context there is no doubt that the Claimant said something to her which caused her to become very upset indeed. Immediately after the incident she complained to a Manager.
Supervisors were having a walk round. Therefore I had to wait until they returned, however James was still in the office and that’s when he waved his hand at me to tell me to go away then that’s when he said “GO BACK TO YOUR OWN COUNTRY”.
James Day was in office and he was talking about England leaving EU and he told Izabela that she should be going back to her own country, the words he said was (you should go back to your own country).”
h) In Mrs V Popescu v Midas Care Ltd:3335593/2018, a race discrimination (color, Romanian), victimization, unfair dismissal, unlawful deduction from wages case-all dismissed:
“Race (12) I am content to record that the claimant relies on colour (…)”
“22. whether the investigation after 5 August related to the claimant’s colour(…)”
Will the Court of Appeal decide on above put before it?
So help us God